Re: [Moosefs-users] architecture question

[Elliot F. <efi...@gm...>]

I forgot to add that my question implies lots of very small files.
Would I be able to scale a chunkserver by using sufficent
cores/spindles to the point of saturating the 6Gbps SAS2 link with a
workload of lots of very small files?

On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Elliot Finley <efi...@gm...> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Robert Sandilands
> <rsa...@ne...> wrote:
>> The only time that many spindles will be remotely useful on 1 controller
>> is if you are doing a large amount of small random read/write accesses.
>> For anything else you are more likely to saturate the bus connecting the
>> machine to the controller/expander.
>
> I appreciate you taking the time to answer.  What you're saying here
> is a common sense answer, but it doesn't really answer my specific
> question.  Most likely because I didn't state it clear enough.  So
> here is my question in a (hopefully) more clear fashion:
>
> Is MooseFS sufficiently multithreaded/multi-process to be able to make
> use of lots of spindles to handle lots of IOPS...  To the point of
> saturating the 6Gbps SAS2 link?  This obviously implies a 10G ethernet
> link to the chunkserver.
>
> Also asked another way:  does having more cores == more performance?
> i.e. Can MooseFS take advantage of multiple cores?  to what extent?
>
> I ask to what extent because a multithreaded/multi-process daemon can
> get hung up with lock contention.
>
> TIA
> Elliot
>